HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28098 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 28.08.2024 and cognizance / summoning order dated 19.12.2024, of criminal case no. 35132 of 2024, arising out of case crime no. 132 of 2024, under Sections 386, 448, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Navabad, District Jhansi, pending in the court of C.J.M., Jhansi. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. It was submitted that the applicants have purchased the disputed property by way of sale-deed and applicant No. 2 has filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale-deed, which was executed in favour of opposite party No. 2 / informant. When the said civil suit was filed by the applicant No. 2, the informant has lodged the first information report of this case as a counterblast. It was further submitted that the matter is pending before the civil court and that the dispute is purely civil in nature. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned proceedings are malicious and thus, liable to be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anis Khan And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants. It was submitted that the informant has purchased the disputed property in the year 2021 by way of registered sale-deed, whereas the sale-deed in favour of applicants has been shown of the year 2023. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held. 7. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the informant has made allegations that she has purchased the disputed property by way of registered sale-deed dated 05.10.2021. When she started construction on the said land, applicants have wrote the name of applicant No. 2 on the premises of the said land. When informant contacted the applicants, they have abused and assaulted her and they have forcibly taken over the possession on the said land. It was further alleged that applicant No. 2 has told that he is related to 'Bajrang Dal' and he would not hand over the NA528 No. 28098 of 2025 2 possession of the said plot unless and until an amount of Rs. 10 lacs is paid to him. It would also be relevant to mention that the sale-deed of informant has been shown of 05.10.2021, whereas the sale-deed in favour of applicants was shown of the year 2023. There is nothing on record to show that any interim order has been passed in favour of the applicants in the said civil suit. In view of these facts and circumstances, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that a civil suit is pending before the civil court between the parties. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned / adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. In the instant matter, in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. Hence, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out and the present application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 8. The application under Section 528 BNSS is accordingly dismissed. September 10, 2025 Anand NA528 No. 28098 of 2025 3 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad